Is marriage really all that sacred to Christians?

Cabaal · 23-02-2013 05:14PM #1

We've all read the debates and much of it comes down to how marriage is a sacred union between and man and a women in the christian faith and thats why they are against gay marriage (well that and they class gay people as an abomination in-line with what the bible states), but was it always this way?

During the past few weeks I've been reading up on this and like so many things in the christian faiths....they appear mighty confused and may I say very conflicting.

First off, lets start with priests. It seems many abandoned the celibacy rule after the 5th century and as such it was normal for them to be married between the 6th and 11th century's.

This changed with the Gregorian reform movement in the 11th century when the church realsed that priests left their property to wives and children...instead of the church. After it changed it became heresy to be married as a priest and married priests appeared to have been given the option to leave the church and loose any of the benefits of this or leave their families, many opted to leave familys.

For the rest of us, in the church there was no christian marriage sacrament until the 16th century.

But outside of that even if we accept that they didn't have a sacrament perhaps they viewed marriage in a positive light? Doesn't seems to be the case though...

St Ambrose called marriage a crime against god, because god had intended every person to maintain the state of virginity that came with birth

But if marriage is really so sacred then how can it also be a crime against god? These are pretty serious words, its not just a sin its a crime.

St Bernard wrote that it is easier for a man to bring the dead back to life than live with a women without endangering his own soul

Hardly encouraging words for somebody to get married are thing?

OK, but surely once marriage come into fashion it was an important union?

The council of Trent (16th Century) ruled that a person who even hunted that marriage might be more blessed than celibacy was a heretic and must be declared anathema - that is formally cursed and excommunicated"

Ok this seems to have been done in order to put priests above anyone else I'm guessing, but seems rather extreme none the less.

errrrr.......but maybe even if they weren't fans of marriage they thought baby's born out of forged union were all good surely?

"Babies are born as the damned fruit of the lust of their parents. From the first, they are the offspring of hell; they are justly children of wrath because they are sinners. If they die unbaptized, they are condemned to everlasting torments for the guilt of their birth alone. Existence is itself a state of sin" - Pope Gregory the Great

So baby's born outside of marriage are the worst thing in the world (we only have to look at how women were treated in Ireland in the past decades), but also a baby born in a marriage or union is the worst thing in the world also?

So basically they didn't care much for it for century's, then when they introduced it in the form we "kind of" know now and this makes it a sacred union/sacrament that in now way should be messed with?

This makes no sense though, if it was so important then surely it would have been a sacrament before the 16th century? The way the Vatican and priests talk about it you'd swear its been an integral and important part of the christian faith for the past 2,000 years.

Clearly this is in now way the case and its only been made important for the past few hundred years, thats a big difference.

For the most part it seems the overall issues is they have some massive hang ups about sex regardless of if its inside or outside of a marriage or union.

In addition there seems to be even bigger hang up's in respect of women ownership of property and the whole women and sin thing....this also explains why women had to be "churched" after childbirth as it seems to have been viewed as the worst thing in the world.

But the marriage itself doesn't appear to be massively important, so my questions are:

- When exactly did it become important and so sacred to the christian faith? From what I've found it seems to have only become more important from the 16th century onwards.
- How can it change from a crime against god to a special union? Surely its still a crime?
- When did baby's inside of marriage stop being the offspring of hell? Given this was said by a pope and my understanding is the pope can't be wrong (infallible?) then surely they still are the offspring of hell?

Turtwig · 23-02-2013 05:49PM

Marriage was never sacred or pure. It's just this ridiculously inaccurate and ignorant "appeal to tradition" fallacy that proponents of the "sanctity of marriage" stick to while ignoring pretty much all of history. Romance or love was rarely a factor, marriages were mostly about power, money and survival. Christianity did little to change that.

Mark Hamill · 23-02-2013 05:56PM

Cabaal wrote: »

St Ambrose called marriage a crime against god, because god had intended every person to maintain the state of virginity that came with birth

Methinks St. Ambrose did not understand how babies were made.

Cabaal · 23-02-2013 07:13PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Methinks St. Ambrose did not understand how babies were made.

To be honest I think that's likely,

we take what we know for granted but when you think about it if you don't know how it happens then it seems far more "god like"

UrbanSea · 23-02-2013 07:15PM

Not trying to be funny, but would it not be better to ask Christians in their forum rather than speculate in this one?

Cabaal · 23-02-2013 07:36PM

RichieLawlessness wrote: »

Not trying to be funny, but would it not be better to ask Christians in their forum rather than speculate in this one?

Fair point I suppose, didn't post it in the forum on the basis i thought they may think I was trolling.

Ok, if a mod wouldn't mind moving this to the catholic forum then please

krudler · 23-02-2013 08:04PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Methinks St. Ambrose did not understand how babies were made.

Beat me to it, probably thought god left babies under cabbages.

Dades · 23-02-2013 09:38PM

Moved to Christianity. I won't be offended if you move it back!

It'd be nice if this didn't turn into a Christian-bash.

Cabaal · 23-02-2013 10:30PM

Dades wrote: »

Moved to Christianity. I won't be offended if you move it back!

It'd be nice if this didn't turn into a Christian-bash.

I'm certainly not intending it to be one, hence why I've edited my first post to pose some questions specifically.

philologos · 24-02-2013 12:44AM

You might want to look to the Bible first rather than looking to what some chap said centuries later.

Dades · 24-02-2013 01:49AM

Elaborating on that would go some way to dispelling any misconceptions the OP has, no?

im invisible · 24-02-2013 05:41AM

philologos wrote: »

You might want to look to the Bible first rather than looking to what some chap said centuries later.

thus falls christianity as we know it

philologos · 24-02-2013 09:55AM

Dades wrote: »

Elaborating on that would go some way to dispelling any misconceptions the OP has, no?

im invisible wrote: »

thus falls christianity as we know it

Sure.

My point is that Ambrose or Bernard even if these quotes come from context aren't authoritative, or indeed aren't as authoritative as Scripture in the Christian view.

We can see from Scripture that marriage is regarded highly:

Matthew 19:3-9 wrote:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”

Or, as I see it one of the most beautiful descriptions of marriage I've ever read:

Ephesians 5:22-33 wrote:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.
Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Marriage not only reflects the loving relationship between a husband and his wife, but marriage also is a microcosm of the relationship between Christ and the church.

Gumbi · 24-02-2013 02:29PM

philologos wrote: »

Sure.

My point is that Ambrose or Bernard even if these quotes come from context aren't authoritative, or indeed aren't as authoritative as Scripture in the Christian view.

We can see from Scripture that marriage is regarded highly:

Or, as I see it one of the most beautiful descriptions of marriage I've ever read:

Marriage not only reflects the loving relationship between a husband and his wife, but marriage also is a microcosm of the relationship between Christ and the church.

It's also, according to the above text, absolute submission on* the part of the wife to the husband. Thanks, but no thanks.

philologos · 24-02-2013 02:32PM

Gumbi wrote: »

It's also, according to the above text, absolute submission in the part of the wife to the husband. Thanks, but no thanks.

No. Read the bottom text and you'll find that the husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Hardly tyrannical. Indeed it's radical and if more people followed this the world would be a better place not a worse one.

lmaopml · 24-02-2013 02:32PM

Cabaal, I'm not sure where you picked up the quotes selected there in that form - I imagine somebody took some time to piece all of that together. The one attributed to St. Bernard, I found difficult to track down myself.... Google is cool, but sometimes it can lead one to sites where people are just plain angry imo, and although their arguements may be persuasive - it's always best to be a bit critical.

As an example of how a person can be misunderstood and a concept and or a 'context' in which they are being quoted is very important to understanding - let's just take a look at another quote by St. Ambrose on marriage...

St. Ambrose (340 - 397)

Some one may say, Do you, then, discourage marriage? Nay, I encourage it, and condemn those who are wont to discourage it, so much so, that indeed I am wont to speak of the marriages of Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, and other women of old time, as instances of singular virtues. For he who condemns marriage, condemns the birth of children, and condemns the fellowship of the human race, continued by a series of successive generations. For how could generation succeed generation in a continual order, unless the gift of marriage stirred up the desire of offspring? Or how could one set forth that Isaac went to the altar of God as a victim of his father's piety, or that Israel, when yet in the body, saw God, Genesis 32:28 and gave a holy name to the people while speaking against that whereby they came into being? Those men, though wicked, have one point at any rate, wherein they are approved even by the wise persons, that in speaking against marriage they declare that they ought not to have been born.

St. Ambrose obviously wasn't against marriage, and he wasn't speaking out of both sides of his mouth either, so it's important to get the full picture.

So you can see perhaps that in order to understand one has got to see the context of a quote, otherwise there would be no 'marrying' any meaning into the quote that would be a faithful presentation or very fair to it's author.

Gumbi · 24-02-2013 03:33PM

"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,"

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands"

Looks pretty black and white to me. If you want to submit to the Church yourself that seems OK to me, but don't push it on others.

JimiTime · 24-02-2013 04:53PM

Many professing Christians have indeed not shown that marriage is sacred, but then many professing Christians are hypocritical. However, they would be acting outside of Christianity when they indulge in no-fault divorce, commit adultery etc. There are still a great multitude of Christians who DO act in a Christian manner with regards to marriage. Many Christians don't even realise how radical marriage is in terms of being 'One Flesh'. You are no longer the owner of yourself, but rather share yourself with your spouse.

Morbert · 24-02-2013 05:38PM

The husband as the head of the household sounds an awful lot like another "no shellfish" moment from the Bible. I can see it somewhat making sense back then, when making a living often involved punching or breaking things.

I don't see that dynamic as relevant any more. Females have been shown to be magnificent leaders with prudence and sensibility (and sometimes tenacity) that have eclipsed many of their male contemporaries, on all levels, from leading families to leading entire nations.

Manach · 24-02-2013 07:00PM

Given the underlying reflection of common law of definition marriage was based on the commonly understood sacrament of marriage, as per Hyde's definition - reflecting what was once a cultural shared Western norm. Now this has been shattered, with marriage a lesser option rather than as a default choice and the linked increase of broken homes a testament on 20thC social engineering gone amok.

jill_valentine · 24-02-2013 07:16PM

philologos wrote: »

No. Read the bottom text and you'll find that the husband should love his wife as Christ loved the church. Hardly tyrannical. Indeed it's radical and if more people followed this the world would be a better place not a worse one.

It's pretty clearly an inherently unbalanced dynamic and seeing somebody fail to see why and describe it as beautiful is disturbing in the extreme.

"Wives submit to your husbands in everything. He's your boss, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, and lads, be nice to her. She needs you to "sanctify" her, after all."

No part of that is "beautiful". Absolutely not. Not unless you believe that men should automatically have "authority" over the women around them, that women benefit from such an arrangement, and that the enactment of such a notion is a sublime and sacred thing we should all celebrate and perpetuate.

Are we to understand from this that it is inherent to the Christian model of marriage that a woman's role is to be subjugated for her own benefit?

philologos · 24-02-2013 10:17PM

I had a feeling there'd be a bit of a backlash on this topic, but that's good. I make no apologies about believing in Scripture and I believe the Biblical description of marriage shows us what God has ordained for marriage, or what God's design is in marriage.

Gumbi wrote: »

"For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church,"

"Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands"

I agree, I believe in Biblical headship. The Bible presents the husband as the head of the family. Where the misconception comes in is when people assume that means that the husband ignores their wife, or it assumes that the husband takes a tyrranical position over their wife. I disagree entirely, the Bible condemns that.

Rather the Bible says that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church. Now if is there is an objection to that on the atheists part they haven't realised what that actually means. If you don't acknowledge that Jesus laid down His life for the church, and if you don't acknowledge that Jesus took the wrath of God on the behalf of church then you don't understand what self-sacrifice in that context looks like.

Gumbi wrote: »

Looks pretty black and white to me. If you want to submit to the Church yourself that seems OK to me, but don't push it on others.

The Bible doesn't advocate intermarriage of Christians with those of other religions, or no religion. It is important that if you are going to be as one flesh that you are likeminded in the Lord and that you are ready and prepared to raise children who walk in the Lord and in the Gospel.

So I'm not pushing that idea on anybody who refuses to acknowledge Jesus. I think Biblical marriage should be taught in churches, and I think Christians should be seeking marriage on the basis of Biblical principles rather than secularised ones.

We are not a part of the world, we belong to Christ, as a result we seek to form our views of the world on the Gospel.

JimiTime wrote: »

Many professing Christians have indeed not shown that marriage is sacred, but then many professing Christians are hypocritical. However, they would be acting outside of Christianity when they indulge in no-fault divorce, commit adultery etc. There are still a great multitude of Christians who DO act in a Christian manner with regards to marriage. Many Christians don't even realise how radical marriage is in terms of being 'One Flesh'. You are no longer the owner of yourself, but rather share yourself with your spouse.

The view of marriage exemplified in Scripture is a covenant relationship that actually models both the covenant relationship of God in Israel if we look in Malachi, and the new covenant relationship in Christ. It is utterly astounding how valuable the Bible places marriage.

Not only is it the loving union of a man and a woman forever, God is saying look at marriage, look at two becoming one flesh, actually I made it so that you can see how much I love you, and how I love you unconditionally, laying down Jesus for the sake of you.

Morbert wrote: »

The husband as the head of the household sounds an awful lot like another "no shellfish" moment from the Bible. I can see it somewhat making sense back then, when making a living often involved punching or breaking things.

I don't see that dynamic as relevant any more. Females have been shown to be magnificent leaders with prudence and sensibility (and sometimes tenacity) that have eclipsed many of their male contemporaries, on all levels, from leading families to leading entire nations.

I believe in the Biblical concept of marriage, and many others do also. Indeed, our church goes to great lengths to ensure that we have a Biblical understanding of it. Indeed it has been interesting during sermon series to look at how the Bible is applicable to real life in the 21st century. Actually this afternoon it came up again when we were looking at Malachi 2:10-16.

I think it is utterly beautiful that a marriage is a microcosm of God's love towards us, or indeed of Christ's relationship with the church.

I guess this claim is contentious in the eyes of the world. I make this claim because Christians need to engage the world with the gospel rather than shying away from foundational teaching.

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's pretty clearly an inherently unbalanced dynamic and seeing somebody fail to see why and describe it as beautiful is disturbing in the extreme.

"Wives submit to your husbands in everything. He's your boss, and that's all there is to it.

Oh, and lads, be nice to her. She needs you to "sanctify" her, after all."

No, it isn't be nice to her. It's lay down your life for her. This is why you need to understand what happened at the cross before you even understand what it is written here.

And you've not understood what happened at the cross properly until you realise that Jesus is Lord and that by repenting and acknowledging Him as your Lord and Saviour you can be forgiven and receive eternal life.

Paul in writing to the Ephesians already has the above philosophical framework in place. With atheists and agnostics, we simply don't.

jill_valentine wrote: »

No part of that is "beautiful". Absolutely not. Not unless you believe that men should automatically have "authority" over the women around them, that women benefit from such an arrangement, and that the enactment of such a notion is a sublime and sacred thing we should all celebrate and perpetuate.

Are we to understand from this that it is inherent to the Christian model of marriage that a woman's role is to be subjugated for her own benefit?

It's not subjugation. It's submission to a loving husband, a husband so loving that he will put the marriage before himself. That's God's design for marriage.

Obviously, this concept shows that a same-sex marriage for example can't fulfill the criteria for a Christian marriage if we spend a while looking at the theology behind it.

I think both parties benefit from a Biblical understanding.

Benny_Cake · 24-02-2013 10:27PM

This is something of a live issue amongst evangelical Christians in particular at the moment, as there are a number of leading figures who are re-emphasising traditional gender roles (ie;male headship) - Mark Driscoll being one of the most prominent. The debate has been lively,to put it mildly. Another take on Ephesians by Christian writer and feminist Rachel Held-Evans is lengthy but worth a read:

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mutuality-household-codes

philologos · 24-02-2013 10:36PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

This is something of a live issue amongst evangelical Christians in particular at the moment, as there are a number of leading figures who are re-emphasising traditional gender roles (ie;male headship) - Mark Driscoll being one of the most prominent. The debate has been lively,to put it mildly. Another take on Ephesians by Christian writer and feminist Rachel Held-Evans is lengthy but worth a read:

http://rachelheldevans.com/blog/mutuality-household-codes

Thank you very much for this. I'm no doubt going to find this a very very interesting read.

I'm biased, but I wouldn't say that they are re-emphasising traditional roles, rather they are emphasising what the Bible actually says, but people would expect me to say this

I don't hold back here because I think unless we get to the core of the issue we won't actually deal with it.

Zombrex · 24-02-2013 10:38PM

Wives submit, husbands love. Charming :rolleyes:

jill_valentine · 24-02-2013 11:55PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Wives submit, husbands love. Charming :rolleyes:

Indeed. It's a wonder 50 Shades seemed to come as such a shock to so many Christians, really. :rolleyes:

You can dress it up in all the flowery language you like, but the model of marriage set out in the aforementioned bible passage is a horrible deal for women, and it's meant to be a horrible deal for women. The whole thrust of it is that she's supposed to be over the moon that her husband is giving her the time of day - she's loved by him, the lucky dog! - in return for her total subservience to his automatic, god given mastery as her keeper. Disgusting.

I'm legitimately shocked to see anybody try and offer that human pet/owner arrangement as a positive or attractive thing to perpetuate in polite society. To be honest, it strikes me as one of the passages you should be shuffling under the carpet along with the stuff about stoning disobedient children.

It's "beautiful" if you're on the winning side, I suppose.

JimiTime · 25-02-2013 01:11AM

Zombrex wrote: »

Wives submit, husbands love. Charming :rolleyes:

Have you even tried to understand, before throwing out the usual shallow atheist one-liners? No doubt the seals will clap their fins, but surely YOU are beyond this type of thing no?

JimiTime · 25-02-2013 01:18AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

Indeed. It's a wonder 50 Shades seemed to come as such a shock to so many Christians, really. :rolleyes:

You can dress it up in all the flowery language you like, but the model of marriage set out in the aforementioned bible passage is a horrible deal for women, and it's meant to be a horrible deal for women. The whole thrust of it is that she's supposed to be over the moon that her husband is giving her the time of day - she's loved by him, the lucky dog! - in return for her total subservience to his automatic, god given mastery as her keeper. Disgusting.

I'm legitimately shocked to see anybody try and offer that human pet/owner arrangement as a positive or attractive thing to perpetuate in polite society. To be honest, it strikes me as one of the passages you should be shuffling under the carpet along with the stuff about stoning disobedient children.

It's "beautiful" if you're on the winning side, I suppose.

No doubt its been abused by misogynists, but the marriage arrangement IS beautiful. You just need to understand what Love entails. Its not about the self, and thus your idea of 'womens rights' or somesuch entering into it is as misplaced as the concept of being able to FALL in or out of love. Again though, its no doubt its been abused over the years.
From a Godly perspective, its nothing to do with tyranny, or some kind of 'boss' arrangement. To think of it in such a manner really misses the point. You must understand the 'ONE FLESH' concept if you want to be rid of your misconception. How can a person be a tyrant over themselves? Was Jesus a tyrant when he went through life for his people and met his torturous end for his body (church)?
A husband was told to give himself to his wife sexually, as well as a wife to her husband, for they were no longer the sole owner of themselves. Its a complimentary relationship, that reflects God somehow (In the image of God they were created, Male and Female).
As a man who is nearly 10 years married, I can tell you that my experience is that my body (Wife) has never dominated me, nor have I (The Head) dominated her. Rather, we have complimented each other (most of the time

) When it comes to Love, I can assure you, the idea of a boss does not eneter the equation. The fact that you would introduce the concept, would maybe suggest that you don't understand Love, or more specifically, the deep love of God, and ths the Love a Christian should seek to emulate. No doubt the sentimental, and often selfish concepts about the place these days have probably corrupted peoples notion of Love.

jill_valentine · 25-02-2013 02:10AM

Love is not a non-reciprocal submission of one person to an automatically authoritative other.

Or if it is, we need another name for the thing where two people who feel a beautiful, profound and passionate affection for one another form a partnership, because it's not that. What you're presenting is the notion that this one way street is an equal deal because, naturally, the husband's love is in itself such a marvellous and precious and superior thing that it offers her as much as her absolute submission as a person would offer to him.

Ugh, the awfulness of the concept you're trying to spin positively here is compounded by how blankfaced you seem to be about how horrifying the implications. "No no, you don't understand! She gets to submit in everything to him! So that he can sanctify her, so that he might present her to himself in splendor! It's great! It's like we're too generous!"

It makes my skin crawl to watch rational adult humans defend an idea that defines another human being as their subject and expect them to feel grateful and blessed by such a role. And to tell me that I don't understand love?

By all means, put that passage on billboards all over the country. Add a silver tie and some handcuffs and you'll be on to a real winner.

philologos · 25-02-2013 07:54AM

Where does Paul say it's not reciprocal?

The point is that though a wife submits to ones husband out of reverence for Christ, the husband loves and serves his wife as Christ lived the church and gave Himself up for her.

This structure precludes abuse of any kind and really isn't subjugation.

I think that marriage according to God's design is beautiful indeed as I see a Christian marriage based on these principles working it is beautiful.

philologos · 25-02-2013 08:00AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

By all means, put that passage on billboards all over the country. Add a silver tie and some handcuffs and you'll be on to a real winner.

Ignoring the last piece because it is based on a misinterpretation of what is being said I wouldn't be in disagreement with someone putting that beautiful quote up on a billboard. It promotes far better value to ones wife or indeed to women in general than many billboards featuring women or marriage do in the world.

Is marriage really all that sacred to Christians?

Comments